AlterNet Revisits 9/11 via Article by Sander Hicks

Editor's note: The role of the alternative press is to offer perspectives that the commercial media won't touch. Having run a number of articles critical of the "9/11 Truth Movement" by Matt Taibbi, Joshua Holland, Matthew Rothschild and others, we asked Sander Hicks, a prominent voice within the movement, to share his perspective. For more of Sanders' views, see his book "The Big Wedding: 9/11, The Whistle-Blowers, and the Cover-Up."

No matter what you believe about who was responsible for 9/11, and how it went down, we're all amazed at how much political capital the events of that day produced for this administration: A bipartisan consensus on torture; an era of permanent war; detentions without trial; "no fly" lists for activists; the Bill of Rights gone with the wind, and a cowed professional media willing to self-censor and suppress pertinent information. The 9/11 "America Attacked" story has distracted us from the natural outrage we should feel over illegal wiretaps, stolen elections, hundreds of billions of dollars missing at the Pentagon, war profiteering, Enron and Cheney's secret energy policy.

But with Bush's popularity at a record low, a Zogby poll shows that over 40 percent of Americans now think there has been a "coverup" around 9/11. A more recent poll conducted at the Scripps-Howard/University of Ohio found more than a third of those asked said it was likely that "people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

So, it's probably no surprise that the propaganda mills of the State Department have recently been cranking out attack websites, targeting 9/11 skepticism. And it's not a shocker that the normal channels of media have followed suit (Time, New York Times, etc.) What's weird is how similar the attacks sound in the hallowed halls of "respectable" left political opinion. A recent column on AlterNet by the Progressive's Matthew Rothschild matched the recent bromides of Counterpunch's Alexander Cockburn. In both pieces, the way 9/11 has been questioned was attacked, with no alternatives suggested. Instead, questioning 9/11 at all was belittled with sweeping generalizations.

What happened to critical thinking? I thought "the Left" believed that the system's power is based on lies, exploitation and a media controlled by its own culture of overly cautious professionalism. The Left should be leading this 9/11 movement, not taking potshots from outside. Unfortunately, some of the movement's theories, like "the towers came down through a controlled demolition" sound esoteric at first blush. The "No Plane Hit the Pentagon" theory is a loose thread in a maze going nowhere.

The Left has no right to ignore or insult people for trying to assemble the puzzle that is 9/11.

Consider some of the pieces:

Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage is a figure bloodied by his work in Iran/Contra. He and then-CIA Director George Tenet had extensive meetings in Pakistan with President Musharraf in the spring of 2001, according to the Asia Times.

Then, Pakistan's top spy, Mahmood Ahmad, visited Washington for a week, taking meetings with top State Department people like Tenet and Mark Grossman, under secretary of state for political affairs. The Pakistani press reported, "ISI Chief Lt-Gen Mahmood's weeklong presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council." Did they know that Ahmad had wired over $100,000 to Mohamed Atta, through U.K. national Saeed Sheikh in the summer of 2001? (Facts all confirmed, quietly, by the FBI investigation in Pakistan, and, partially, in the Wall Street Journal.)

That means that our top people at the State Department enjoyed only a few degrees of separation from 9/11's lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta. Here's the real kicker: As this story first broke in the Times of India, in October 2001, instead of retaliating, the United States gave Pakistan $3 billion in U.S. aid. Ahmad was allowed to quietly resign.

Bob Graham, D-Fla., who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, would later tell PBS's Gwen Ifill: "I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true."

Skip forward to Feb. 15, 2006. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer gave a 48-page statement to the House Armed Services Committee, in which he stated, unequivocally, that his Defense Intelligence operation, Able Danger, identified Mohamed Atta as a major terrorist back in year 2000. But Shaffer and his team of "the 'best and brightest' military operators" were prevented from sharing this information with the FBI. According to Shaffer, during a crucial meeting the group's Pentagon supervisors and attorneys from the Special Operations Command in early 2000, the Able Danger team was ordered to cover Atta's mugshot with a yellow sticky note. Military lawyers at the Pentagon claimed it was to protect the rights of "U.S. Persons."

Some progressives are turned off to the Able Danger story, since it was the pet obsession of recently defeated congressman "Crazy" Curt Weldon, R-Pa., the "patriot" who planned a clandestine trip to personally dig through Iraq in order to find the WMD's for Bush's White House. And the Department of Defense inspector general recently issued a report claiming that the Able Danger operation never identified Atta. But author Peter Lance (an Emmy-award winning reporter, formerly with ABC), author of "Triple Cross: How bin Laden's Master Spy Penetrated the CIA, the Green Berets, and the FBI -- and Why Patrick Fitzgerald Failed to Stop Him," calls the Pentagon IG report a "whitewash … set out to prove a predetermined thesis: that these decorated military officers had somehow lied and risked their careers by exaggerating Able Danger's findings." Rather, Lance confirms that Shaffer, and his colleague, Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott, "found links to 9/11 hijackers, Atta, [Khalid] al-Midhar and [Nawaf] al-Hazmi as connections between al Qaeda and the New York-based cell of [the blind Sheikh] Omar Abdel Rahman."

When the critics focus on the wacky theories and not on careful, moderate, serious authors like Lance, it's a strategy to frame the debate. It steers the argument from going after the real meat of 9/11: the history of U.S. foreign policy in strategic alliances with radical Islam.

Specifically, there are a set of troubling connections between the 9/11 terrorists and the U.S. State Department, the Pakistani ISI (old friends of the CIA from working together creating Afghani Mujahadeen during the Russian occupation), the Saudi General Intelligence Directorate, the Pentagon, Maxwell Air Force Base and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Why did the 9/11 terrorists get protected from Able Danger at that Pentagon meeting? Who covered up Atta with a yellow sticky note? What are we supposed to think about the news (reported by Knight Ridder news service 9/15/01) that Atta had attended International Officer School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama?

Atta was the Oswald of the whole operation. He is an enigma; everywhere you turn in his story, the details are wildly contradictory. Instead of a devout Muslim, you have a party-hearty Florida playboy, according to author Daniel Hopsicker, author of "Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta and the 9/11 Cover-Up in Florida." The FBI has sworn for five years Atta didn't arrive in Florida until June 2000. But in 2000 Hopsicker found and videotaped Amanda Keller, Atta's American girlfriend, and many other Florida locals who contradict that story. In fact, Atta lived with Keller at the Sandpiper apartments, just outside the Venice, Fla., airport, in March 2000. Thanks to the magic of web video, anyone can see Hopsicker's footage of Keller's reminiscences of Atta: in Florida, they hung out with cocaine-addled strippers doing lines in three-night-long parties. With them were certain white Germans, including one "Wolfgang Bohringer" whom Atta called "brother."

Why "brother?" During Atta's university years in Cairo, the engineering guild that he joined had made him a member of the group Muslim Brotherhood. 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is also a card-carrying "brother." The Muslim Brotherhood has been around since the 1920's, it was originally an anti-colonial group. Today, it's the most powerful terrorist force you've never heard of. Their frontmen in Egypt are nonviolent and run for office. But the real sordid history of the Muslim Brotherhood is that, since 1928, its anti-Semitism and anti-Zionist ideologies have turned it into the perfect partner in crime for Nazis, European fascists, American far-rightists and their contemporary counterparts, the neoconservatives.

Hopsicker's original research on Wolfgang Bohringer inspired the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) to issue a FBI Terror Alert on Nov. 16, 2006. According to sources close to the investigation, Bohringer was apprehended in the South Pacific on Nov. 17, but shocked the arresting agents when he claimed, "You can't arrest me, I'm working for the CIA." A former JTTF undercover operative, Randy Glass, confirmed that Bohringer was arrested and released.

Oct. 9, 2006, saw the release of leading D.C. muckrakers Susan and Joe Trento's latest mind-blowing work on "national security." "Unsafe at Any Altitude: Failed Terrorism Investigations, Scapegoating 9/11, and the Shocking Truth about Aviation Security Today"> made 60 Minutes. The book savages the incompetence and "eye candy" of the Transportation Security Administration. This is not a book you want to read on a long flight: It turns out the "no fly" lists are pathetically inaccurate. The Trentos' report that the CIA regularly lets known terrorists fly as a tactic to try to catch more of them.

Some of the Trentos' findings were too hot for 60 Minutes. The book's blockbuster revelation is that the Pentagon kamikaze Flight 77 terrorist crew was led by two agents of the General Intelligence Directorate (GID) of Saudi Arabia: Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. Sound familiar? They should. They are the same two guys Peter Lance found being protected from Able Danger by top brass at the Pentagon. This same duo lived in San Diego with an FBI informant. The same duo took money from the wife of Bush friend Saudi Prince Bandar.

The U.S. State Department's dirtiest secret is its 30-year habit of working with the far-right radical Islamists. In 1977, President Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (aka the "Democrats' Kissinger") started the Nationalities Working Group. According to his neocon minion, Richard Pipes, the group was tasked with using Islamic rage in the central Asian republics to stir up "genocidal fury" against the Soviet Union. (Pipes' son, Daniel, is a well-known neocon who headed the U.S. Institute for Peace under Bush II.) Brzezinski later admitted in an interview to Nouvel Observateur that he advised Carter to initiate funding for the Mujahedeen so that the Soviet Union would have to enter the region, engage in a Vietnam-like debacle and destroy their economy.

In fact, according to a Special Report in The Economist, the whole notion of "jihad" died out in Islam in the 10th century until "it was revived, with American encouragement, to fire an international pan-Islamic movement after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979."

Throughout the '80s, the Reaganites were superficially opposed to the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran. But in reality, the Islamic fundamentalists were happy customers for U.S. arms sales. Care of the Reagan/Bush team, a triangular trade kept a clandestine flow of weapons, money and narcotics moving in and out of Central America, all to benefit the right-wing Contra militia. Meanwhile, the capital was flowing into the Mujahedeen through Pakistan. Oh, yeah, we were selling weapons to Iraq, too, so they could fight the Iranians.

The financial engine that helped run these operations was a well-oiled and bloody front bank called the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. BCCI was the funding vehicle that American and Pakistani intelligence used to arm the Afghani Mujahedeen against the Soviets. In the Pakistan/Afghanistan theatre, it moved guns and bombs in, and shipped heroin out. In Central America, it moved in guns and advisors, and took the payoff in cocaine.

When BCCI got busted in 1991, $10 million in State Department accounts was discovered. The CIA and the Pakistani ISI, learning to love each other in their first of many sick trysts, built BCCI into an international network still very much alive. Sen. John Kerry's investigation into BCCI started out strong, but eventually caved to political pressure. Under pressure from Senator Claiborne Pell (D-RI), Kerry fired his top investigator, Jack Blum. No major players were ever apprehended, censured, prosecuted or sentenced for the genocidal, narcotics-trafficking, lucrative top crimes of our time. Instead, many of them returned to power in 2001.

According to S.C. Gwynne and Jonathan Beaty, authors of "The Outlaw Bank," BCCI was "a vast, stateless, multinational corporation" that deployed "its own intelligence agency, complete with a paramilitary wing and enforcement units, known collectively as the Black Network." BCCI wasn't just a fluke; it wasn't just the biggest corporate scandal of all time. It was the perfect example of what big money does today in an unregulated global market.

When George W. Bush, and his gang of bloodstained Iran/Contra suspects seized the White House, they ushered in a new era of intimacy between the federal government and international mega-capital. After all, "Dubya" Bush had wasted a good chunk of his life in a cocaine and whiskey stupor, but the other half was spent in bad business deals with people like Saudi heavyweight Khalid bin Mahfouz. Mahfouz, alongside Salem bin Laden (Osama's half-brother), was a 1977 investor in Arbusto Energy, Bush's first oil company. Mahfouz later became the majority shareholder of BCCI. Mahfouz helped broker the deal for Bush when he wanted to unload his Harken energy stock. This same Khalid bin Mahfouz was branded by a report to the UN Security Council as one of the seven top Saudi al Qaeda money men. Shortly after the Bush/Harken deal, Mahfouz donated a quarter of a million dollars to Osama bin Laden's Mujahadeen in the late 1980s. According to Forbes, he put $30 million into the Muwaffaq Foundation, which the Treasury Department labeled an al Qaeda front. (Mahfouz also legendary for suing anyone who says so, and has terrified and constrained independent publishers in Canada and the UK.) Is it any wonder then, that the heavily compromised, Bush-White House connected 9/11 Commission took a dive to the mat on the "financing of 9/11" question? They said the money behind 9/11 was "of little practical significance" when behind the curtain stood an old friend of Bush, controlling a bogeyman named "al Qaeda." Senator Bob Graham said he was "stunned that we have not done a better job of pursuing" the question of foreign financing, and that crucial information had been "overly classified."

Money talks. It helps explain why 14 other countries tried but could not effectively warn the U.S.A. about the impending 9/11 attacks. The money connections, the real history of 9/11, explains why the top bin Laden financial tracker at the FBI's Chicago office, Robert Wright, was so upset after the attacks. Through tears of anger and frustration, he told a National Press Club audience, "The FBI ... allowed 9/11 to happen." What? What did he say? "FBI management intentionally and repeatedly thwarted and obstructed my investigations into Middle Eastern terrorist financing."

Why was Wright thwarted by his higher-ups? And what about FBI translator Sibel Edmonds' claim that, among the agency's Farsi translators, "it was common knowledge that a longtime, highly regarded FBI 'asset'" told the agency in early 2001 that "bin Laden was planning a major attack involving the use of planes," but after agents wrote up reports and sent them to their superiors "it was the last the agents heard of the matter?" Why were FBI agent Colleen Rowley's reports about Zacarias Moussaoui receiving flight training in Minnesota apparently ignored by Washington, causing her to charge that key facts, were "omitted, downplayed, glossed over and/or mischaracterized" by FBI bosses?

There are important questions that remain to be answered. The establishment isn't asking them. Instead, the citizen journalists out there are breaking this story.

Remember how much political reaction there has been ever since the people rose up, united across borders and shut down the war machine in Vietnam. For six years, the neocons have ruled by fear. We, the resistance, must drive them out with a little something stronger: peace, truth, revolution. We know history. We have a mission. Taste the clash of history, and you'll know which side you're on.

Five Years Later: The Official Story Falls Apart: Sander Hicks
"If the American people really want the truth about 9/11, we’ve got to stop diddling around with theories about maybe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, or maybe controlled demolition took down the towers"

Hicks always offers up good stuff. Where he goes wrong is when he starts persuading people to shy away from hard physical evidence about the 3 structural collapses of that day.

Instead, he and Daniel Hopsicker would have us chasing decades of successfully covered up operations like IranContra and BCCI.

So let me ask you this:

1. IranContra - Has ANYONE been brought to justice?
2. BCCI - Has ANYONE been brought to justice?

No and NO. SO why should I believe it would be any different with 9/11? Especially if I neglect to even look at the collapses themselves and provide a basis for why the events ON 9/11/2001 do not make sense!

Get your physical evidence FIRST then chase the rabbit down the hole.

If the same social networks are involved and those same networks have avoided prosecution over the decades...

I'm not saying those aren't important. I'm saying that why are those things more important then explaining why the buildings collapsed?

So we should be chasing conspirators that have already been able to perpatrate massive intel/terror operations like IranContra and BCCI without as much of a slap on the wrist...instead of hardcore physical evidence.

I'm not saying his points aren't important, but stating that it's not valuable to show that the collapses on 9/11 hold no value to the overall 9/11 Truth movement (and somehow detract from it????!!) is crazy to me.

Also, Amanda Keller has since stated she fabricated her "Atta was my boyfriend" story.

i totally agree. HIcks is good at what he does but has it wrong when he says that. though i would say you can chase the rabbit down the hole while ALSO getting physical evidence. we must do both in my opinion.

The collapses of those buildings must be explained. If one can show that the government explanation for the collapses is bogus then use the past precedent set by those investigated by Hicks....then you have a case.

I said the exact same thing...both lines of investigation are important. Hicks seems to be saying "my investigation should be the focus, collapses detract". I respectfully disagree.

You are right. We have enough people in the movement to do both. 1) research the history of BCCI, Pakistani ISI, Kroll, etc 2) scientifically examine the collapses of the three WTC Buildings and even 3) work on publicity and outreach.

Each person should do as much as they want in what area they feel comfortable doing it. Some will do all three, some only one. But Amen regardless because it is working.

And I've seen Sander HIcks in person in Madison WI, and I can tell you he is one hell of a public speaker. Very passionate and his facts come to his head incredibly well on the fly. He can stream of conscious his arguments and support them as well. Great speaker.

We do have to explore the collapse
- The phsyics of the collapse,
- The properties of the fire and the structural steel
- The engineering and construction of the buildings.
- The history of building collapse.
- An explaination of the capabilities and the use of explosives

Then we must give connection to:
- the people with access to the buildings
- The Means
- The Motive
- The Lies

This is important to our argument and should not be overlooked. Will we ever get to the whole truth about the actual events which led up to 9/11 and indict everyone involed? Probably not.

But we are going to get enough of them so that this will never happen again without the people of the world knowing where to look for those who did the crime.

The depth of this crime is OK to theorize about but it should not be parrt of our argument. This all needs to be investigated and we can not prove this with speculation.

When this goes to trial and the evidence presents itself, it will be their job to prove their innocence. This is what scares them the most.

absolutely. but people on both sides need to recognize the importance of the others area of research/activism. i like to think i am in both camps but i find that i have to defend the CD camp from within the movement much more. it other words, the CD camp seems to be much more accepting of the BCCI, Pakistani ISI, Kroll, etc. camp. both sides need to realize the importance of the other. we would not be here in the capacity we are now as a movement without BOTH areas of research. its time everyone realizes that. this is why Sanders comments are off base in my opinion. he is one hell of a public speaker though for sure. and the way he made that scumbag 9/11 Commissioner Ven-Beniste squirm was classic. same with his picture with Dick Cheney. great stuff.

Lately I've been spending a lot of time confronting Holocaust deniers and those who would defend them, but if you'll look at my blog entries you'll see that my primary interest is in answering Left Gatekeepers.

What's disappointing to me is that I'd have to confront Holocaust deniers anywhere.

Good points, jpass; obviously, the physical evidence would/will sink myriad phoney boats. It would then have to lead to an uprising of some kind, and a major one. It calls for huge restructuring. That's why we've seen so many distractions from it.

But Hicks is at least preparing people. Reading this, anyone can see that this stinks, that there is something really sordid going on here. He was probably smart to start out this way. We now have a trail that will quickly lead people toward the physical evidence.

One place we here can start: in the comments to this Alternet article. Post comments. Post good comments.

I just think that if it is a strategy, it's like taking the long road when you have easy access to the short road.

Hicks brings up so many past connections and iran contra, bcci, mujadeen. All these things would require one to dive deep deep deep into black politics and inteligence operations on their own. This process is long and arduous. Only a fool would make up their mind without actually studying the connections these things present (relative to 9/11).

For example...

I go up to someone who is either on the fence or believes the 'official' theory about 9/11. Lets say I the two appraoches...

1. Look m8, the collapse could not have POSSIBLY happened as the government explaines...here is why....

or

2. Well, if you look to the past at Iran Contra, BCCI, the CIA training the Mujadeen.....you will notice a patter. The same social networks pop up....and then duck back into the shadows.....

You see my point? With option one you show, easily and effectivly that 9/11 has been covered-up. With option 2 the person has to study study study. It's like taking the long windy confusing route when there is a simpler and more accessible route in front that is more near by.

In the end both lines of investigation are important. I just don't get why hicks does not see this.

I will register for Alternet but damn, i'm getting sick of the passwords and user names in millions of places. It's getting ridiculous.
Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

and yes, do that. I hope we all do. Yes it is troublesome but look what lies ahead without us taking some troubles.

As you can see, I just meant that we here can go to the Alternet site and post comments mentioning the physical evidence. Hicks gave us a good forum for that.

That is, BTW, exactly how I got into 9-11 truth. Someone commenting on one of the Gatekeeper hitpieces recommended 9-11 Mysteries. Without that comment, and me following that lead, I would heve remained an unconsciouis gatekeeper myself.

This argument is not productive. Whether we take A or B or A AND B, it is not up to us!

Not on 9-11 blogger. It is only up to us if we gain power. The committees and Attorney's General need to respond. The public offices have the power to move this. The citizen has done his duty. now the office-holders have to respond or get out of the way. The pressure has to be put on the candidates live and in public. Time to bird dog with anything that burns unresolved for you. You have the right to know. Let's go demand it.

I personally don't give a crap about Alternet. I just ignore that slap crap and step over them. The battle of public opinion is done. Those who have controlled the media are dying and they know it. Now we need the levers of government. Boston Tea Party was a gesture. Truth squads on the ass of candidates. Some guy hounding Jesse Jackson. Put the questions to the faces. Sunshine disinfects.

When someone consistently tries to persuade people NOT to look under certain rocks it alarms me. Sander Hicks has consistently tried to pursuade people NOT to look at one of the most important attributes of the 9/11 hoax.

Why anyone would take the guy serious after he says what I have quoted him as saying above (not looking at why the buildings collapsed) is beyond me. Gatekeeping. Dood, do your research. But it's nonsensical to say things like...

if americans want to know the truth they should stop looking into things like why the towers collapsed.

I'm glad to see this and other posts in this thread regarding Sander Hicks and his approach to 9/11. I have to assume that his appearance on Alternet is a plus, and could help open some heretofore closed minds--all well and good. But when I read him on 9/11, I'm often left disappointed. In an issue of his Vox Pop newspaper 'Megaphone' from last fall, he remarked at one point that controlled demolition at the WTC is 'a tall order' (after hearing David Ray Griffin and others make mincemeat of the official story on that question, I don't know what the hell Hicks means by this). And at times in his book, 'The Big Wedding,' he almost sounds like Peter Lance, speculating about whether the purported highjackers were 'double agents,' doublecrossing their American handlers--coming ever closer to but never quite taking the obvious next step (obvious for someone like Tarpley, or Ralph Shoenman), to consider whether 'patsies' might be a better description for them than 'double agents,' to put before the reader the possibilty that their American handlers, after utilizing such groups to suit their purposes in different parts of the globe, would have very strong motives and no moral qualms about using them to commit terrorism inside the United States as well.

The physical evidence works for some people first (I'm one) but whistle blowers etc work for others. As an introduction I've found that the kind of content given by Hicks is a great tool, unless the person is an engineer or another technical field. He doesn't say that it doesn't make sense, he only says that it doesn't make sense at first sight. I've given 9/11 Mysteries to people who think "the government" killed JFK, RFK and MLK and they reply with "I don't believe it". I follow up with Press For Truth and they are suddenly on board. Most of those people later come around to the demolitions but LIHOP is a nice middle ground to get people in.

AlterNet couldn't reasonably publish Dr. Jones' paper because of its length (a link would be nice) but they can get people to start looking into truth. If this is the beginning of more Truth works from them, I'm all for it. At bare minimum the readers of this article will have a hard time regurgitating the Cockburn/Chomsky lines with any seriousness. They may even join the call for a new investigation just from this article.

If you slam someone over the head with demolitions, secret societies, Bohemian Grove etc they will walk away saying you're nuts. If you give them a base that they can see as possible then move them further in (reverse frog in a pot) then I've found they are more likely to join. I've also found that once you reach about the point of the NORAD drills and building seven, they take the initiative and research on their own for much of the rest.

This stuff doesn't go for everyone so we in the movement need to be able to read people with a few preliminary questions then get them information that will suit to move them into action.

As an example, for the longest time I found that the Prada wearing daddy's girl was the hardest to get interested in this. They just didn't seem to care about anything of value. A few months ago I figured out that if you started them off with the old PBS special on the diamond cartel, they became sufficiently pissed to be open to these things. Its a question of finding the material that will break the "matrix programming" enough to open the door to new possibilities. The results are mixed from this tactic. Most of them think it was an inside job but few are willing to work towards a solution. That said, when the topic is brought up around them a few guys are convinced to look into it because a hot girl said she believes it so knowing some details could get them into her pants (the more things change...)

We have to avoid a rigid dogma of how to introduce this to people. Everyone is different so our handout material/articles should reflect that.

I can't find the source, but I'm positive it was reported that Keller now claims the man she dated was not Atta. She could have been intimidated by the feds. Regardless, other sources, like the Wall Street Journal, reported Atta's drinking and gambling. I don't think many details hinged on Keller being his girlfriend, except perhaps the claim that he dated a stripper.

I've been looking at the people who were in the media during the first few days after the event. The ones whose stories became the official myth. This group of people usually have some interesting similarities. For example, the 'Let's Roll Team' on Flight 93 were mostly young, physically fit, white men with short black hair. The key people were fundie christians.

Anyone know anything else about Ms. Amanda? I don't know if I'd want this girl to be my nurse during an emergency.

Anyone interested in the History of the Movement must see the film "Who Killed John O'Neill" I mean he compacts almost all tof the relevant information into a highly energized conversation. Here is the link:

Yeah Jon. The reason I put it up in the comments so much recently is because that is how I became aware of it. A lot of people are pros here but there are always the beginners like me who stumble on things for the first time too. And yeah. Yesterday was the first time I saw it. Today I made a word document of the transcript of the film. It is a great read as you probably know. Just jam packed with facts and great information. It would make a great play for public performance if we got permission from Ty and the others. I also compiled a list of all the individuals and companies listed in the film for people interested in further research. I mean that damn film is a treasure trove of information for anyone willing to take the time to put together a criminal case against these effin' fools. I love it.

The biggest mistakes we make as political activists and American Citizens is to underestimate the evil of our current rulers.. Bush Crime Family, International Bankers, War Profiteers, CFR, etc.

And the biggest mistake they made was to underestimate the intelligence, determination, and creativity of the American people. We have the ultimate power and they know that, if we choose to exercise it. And we shall overcome.

"When the critics focus on the wacky theories and not on careful, moderate, serious authors like Lance, it's a strategy to frame the debate. It steers the argument from going after the real meat of 9/11: the history of U.S. foreign policy in strategic alliances with radical Islam."

Oh yeah. Radical Islamists working with the neocons to do what exactly? Snort coke?

I don't buy for one second Alternet's claim of wanting to balance the debate on its pages. Why dig up Sander Hicks? Why does this guy tell people not to look at controlled demolition or the Pentagon? Why?

It's simple--Alternet is not changing its stripes here, it is engaging in a one-two punch against the obvious physical evidence in the 9/11 case in favor of "high intrigue" sourced, no surprise here, by convenient FBI leaks. He even stretches by saying that Saeed Sheik made the wire transfer. Anyone who takes the time to look into this claim of the FBI's will find that the name Saeed Sheik was not connected with the wire transfer--a pseudonym was used. The FBI is not exactly a trustworthy source when it comes to 9/11.

We are indeed making headway, though, because if it weren't for the popularity of Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries: Demolitions, and the work of Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Willie Rodriguez, etc. the gatekeepers would not find it necessary to throw this Sander Hicks guy in our faces as some kind of bone we're supposed to be grateful for.

I have no illusions about how this comment will be responded to by some around here, because I know how strongly some people claim to feel about focusing on this kind of stuff as if it were more compelling to people than the collapse of the towers and building 7, and the lack of plane debris at the Pentagon.

There is little use, I've found, in trying to reason with some people on tehse points. There are simply different approaches that people take, and some of those approaches seem suspiciously eager to discourage people from talking about the physical evidence. These efforts usually include citing how shill outlets like CNN and Fox News make people talking about physical evidence look bad. Well, what would you expect them to do--try to make those people look good?

And if people instead talked about Pakistan, should we expect that CNN and Fox News will behave any differently?

There is also an interesting overlap of people who want to blame Pakistan/al Qaeda for 9/11 and those who think people who focus on Israel's role are anti-semites. Constantly injecting Holocaust Denial™ into the debate (i.e. whenever Chris Bollyn opens his mouth) is the best method they've found for changing the subject from Israel's role in 9/11 to something they think is easier for them to handle (despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing inherently bigoted about revisionism). The best they can come up with is "What kind of person would even THINK to question the holocaust?" A leading question, no doubt, just like "What kind of person would even THINK to question 9/11?" must sound to poeple who have yet to dig beneath the very top layer of the official myth.

For those who say that the holocaust has nothing to do with 9/11, and that as such it has no place in a discussion about 9/11, I beg to differ. 9/11 is very much being used as "America's little holocaust". A sacred myth that cannot be questioned. One that casts us as a victim and which enables unscrupulous people to abuse the suffering of genuine victims for their own devious ends. It is no coincidence that the 9/11 museum is being designed by the same folks who brought us the holocaust museum. If people can't understand how these issues are related, and talk about them in a mature, non-hysterical manner, then there is little hope indeed for any effort to arrive at historical truth, unless we become wise to the ways of real disinfo--not jsut the child's play variant represented by Nico and Fetzer.

I do a lot of outreach in public and every now and then someone will come up to me with the same song and dance. Oh yes, I think they were in on it, but (either) I believe AA77 hit the Pentagon (or) I don't think the towers were demolished. It just makes no sense, unless you see it as these people's form of damage control or something. The path of least resistance is usually a trap in these cases, so this kind of bizarre reticence on some poeple's part just supports my suspicion to me...

"It is no coincidence that the 9/11 museum is being designed by the same folks who brought us the holocaust museum."

You are a moron.

and he is calling Hicks LIHOP?

HICKS was educating people on MIHOP 4 years ago when we had him speaking on behalf of NY911Truth here in NYC. He was one of the first.

But - of course - a Real Truther post would not be complete without his undermining the MOST significant research forwarded for the MOST credible researchers in our movement - Griffin - Zwicker - Ruppert - 911Truth.org - Levis - Gold - myself - Hicks - Press for the Truth.... namely the Pakistan connection.

so lets review - bash me calling me a shill and agent - bash Hicks calling him LIHOP - work anti-semitism into every discussion - talk about missiles at the Pentagon...

Not only that, but Ruppert has apologized publically on From the Wilderness for his dismissive attidude towards CD in the early days of 911Truth.

He maintains, however, and I tend to agree with him, the best way to nail the bastards is through means, motive and opportunity. I do find the physical evidence to be an excellent way to engage people who are open to it; unfortunatly many-most?-people just aren't interested in the geeky minutia that most of us find convincing.

In Ruppert's defense, 911does fall into the "stranger that fiction" catagory. If someone proposed the 911attacks as a novel and you were an editor, would YOU publish it?

"Oh, come on! No one is going to believe jet fuel caused the towers to collapase!"

"Ruppert believed that scientists could be paid off to say what those in power wanted them to say. He had a valid point."

This is peculiar trait of scientists eh? Not like the FBI who claims that the pseudonymous wire transfer was by Saeed Sheikh. They don't have to be paid OFF to lie about that, they are PAID to lie about that.

The point is not just that the transfer--whoever did it--proves nothing about 9/11, but also that relying on FBI-assisted-by-Indian-intelligence for information on a story that implicates Pakistan in either something embarrassing, illegal, or otherwise hard to explain, is not all that sound. It's entirely possible that Pakistan was set up, asked to be part of this charade of making it seem that Atta was up to something. Then, when India goes public with the info, Pakistan has egg on its face. To suggest that this scenario is in fact anything other than that is to make quite a leap, in the process of which one also swallows with scant evidence and in the face of much contradictory information, the canard (quack!) that Atta was an actual hijacker and not part of a cover story for the real (non-hijacking) perps.

observance and care will result in 911truth making the world to where a holocaust against jews or otherwise never happens again....
--------------------------------------------------

i';d never met jews before until just a year ago basically----and we hung out and talked about this stuff openly

and one of the big impressions i got was

1. it didnt matter whether the holocaust actually happened or not-----in his reality it did----and he had a justified reason to be paranoid about it-----

2. this guy personally didnt do 911----it would be stupid to sit there and try to blame 'the jews' when you realize that 99.9999999% had absolutely nothing to do with it
--------------------------------------------------
so they should have a new categorie

-----sympathist/holocaust/deniers

so that people who doubt on the historical level about the holocaust -----can still show that they are sympathetic to jews and the issues the holocaust raises

A lot more cold then hot.
I wish DeadPooPoo666 (worst name ever), Amanda and concreteman would just leave.
At least Mark Roberts and Ronny Wiecke believe in the government so much that they are probably honest when they think 19 hijackers did it.
PooPoo, Amanda and Concrete KNOW 9/11 was an inside job and still try to stir the pot and get us fighting amongst each other.
LEAVE!

Wow. I'm sorry "John" I didn't realize you were so well-regarded in the movement. I tried to look up the view count for EGLS, you LIHOP movie, but it no longer shows it. Did you do this after I pointed out how so few people have bothered to watch you movie compared to 9/11 Mysteries: Demolitions? You can plead the fifth on that one. Heck, after listening to your description of the company you and Nico both worked for, the one that was a front for drugs and porn as you put it, I really began to wonder about a) your judgement, b) your relationship with Nico and c) the bizarre crap that surrounds you.

I'm beginning to wonder also about your unbounded ego (in evidence above) and your penchant for name dropping (DeNiro's theatre huh? Woooow. You were at THAT party? Woooow.)

Anyway I had wanted to just ignore you and give your defenders the benefit of the doubt, but the way you've begun to call me a bigot in every other post has really begun to annoy me.

and all these people who consistently insist that i am anti-physical evidence are just going to feel silly when they see it.

what these people are REALLY saying is that they are simply too emotionally immature to accept that not everyone agrees with THEIR conclusions - and they would rather accuse each other of being "agents" and "shills" than allow the rational debate and research to run its course.

Possessing no advanced degrees in physics or structural engineering, I never felt that my opinions were relevant. And while I might document historical events associated with 9/11 in my films, the job of expressing opinions on the issue of complex and catastrophic building failures, physics and engineering, was simply not within the realm of my particular area of expertise, therefore rendering my opinions on the matter as insignificant and in many respects inappropriate.

Many within the 9/11 Truth movement regarded this sense of humility as betrayal, accusing me of attempting to censor “the truth” and not towing the party line on controlled demolition. Some of the accusation went even further.

(end of quote)

There is no shortage of authoritative voices on this subject - including 011 Mysteries and Dr Steven Jones who has personally contacted me to personally thank me for my work.

I find people who consistently accuse me of being an agent simply because my films are not on the subject of controlled demolition - and missing planes at the pentagon - are attempting to assassinate my character.

YOU yourself have speculated on whether i may be an agent. Now - tell me- why should i have any respect for YOUR contributions here?

Do we have the power of subpoena? Do we have access to steel samples? Has most of the physical evidence been destroyed?

We're not running an investigation we're arguing in the court of opinion in order to get a legitimate investigation. Physical evidence is crucial if it can be obtained. At present while the collapses of the buildings look like CD we can't actually prove that. Perhaps that will change with Steve Jones finishes his analysis of the steel samples and publishes the results in a way that can duplicated.

I've been working on spreading 9/11 Truth to my dad for years now. At first, he wouldn't believe anything (of course). After a few years, he started riding the fence saying we need a new investigation.
Just a few weeks ago, he saw you speak at some event (not quite sure which one but it was recent) and he is totally on our side now.
He sent me a long email about how great a speaker John Albanese is and how everyone who doubts 9/11 Truth should hear him speak first.
After he told me that I said: "well then, you need to hear Tarpley and Berger speak" and I sent him some links to other truthers.

He said "they are good but John is the best, hands down".

Just wanted to show you that you're helping out a lot in this movement!
Keep it up!

Thank you. Feedback like this is hard to come by. One of the disheartening things about becoming a public figure in this movement is that it appears you can never please all of the people all of the time.

A simple review of this message board alone will illustrate how suspicious and critical people can be. And it is a little disappointing that - not only do i need to worry about how the government may react to my speeches and films - i also have to worry about members of our own movement defaming my reputation.

But - as is usually the case - critics tend to be louder than anyone else - so i especially appreciate the occasional post offering positive feedback, such as yours, Thanks again.

Superb, Real Truther. A superb essay. Your handling of the Holocaust question is first rate.

Who benefits from the official Holocaust story? Who benefits from the official 9/11 story?

There was once a time, in our parents' generation, when one could talk about what happened in Europe during the war rationally, based on the known facts. At some point, the Holocaust story was elevated to quasi-religous status, beyond question or analysis. We are still in the period regarding 9/11 when we can talk about the facts. The danger is, in a short time, the official 9/11 story will also be elevated to that same quasi-religious status.

You need to look into Holocaust denial and how it works. These guys have an agenda and it's not pretty. They aren't rational or honest in their analysis. This is the worst kind of disinfo and it's absolute poison to the 9/11 movement.http://nizkor.org/

1: Why does holocaust denial appeal to some people?
2: Why, with all our exhortations of "never again" does the state sponsored killing of people for profit of some kind or another, continue as we speak?

The answers to both questions lie in the fact most people are not educated about who the real rulers of the world are and how real power(in this case, real disfunctional power) works.

1. Why does it appeal to people? No, they're not stupid--but they have very little ability to critically think or challege authority. Why? They learned /were taught to be that way. Throw in autoritarian socialization, dualistic thinking that goes with it (there must always be bad guys somewhere), an the inability to admit mistakes, leading to an inability to problem solve--oh, and a desparate need to belong/ get approval from authortiy--see aforementioned socialization--and you have the pavlovian pre-conditions for all sorts of neurosis.

Now tell this person that their authorities screwed up in some major way--or worse, deliberately murdered masses of people for fun and profit. Think they'll be outraged? Think again. Unless they witnessed it themselves, they can't afford to believe authority fucked up this badly because they have learned without a great leader, they are nothing.

They don't dare think of what they'd do if their leader was evil, because they do not see themselves as potential leaders. Identity=faithful loyal follower. Such people will look for ANY reason not to upset their disturbed world view because they can't imagine a better world where they are their own leaders.

Enter evil Jews(or fill in the blank). Anything to avoid the reality that the wars are started or are the result of profit seeking by a very small but powerful group that will rob and kill the "followers" just as soon as look at them. Without this precondition, "holocaust denial" or any other obsession counter to ones self interest would be dead in the water.

These deniers don't have mysterious super powers. They thrive only because of the misplaced anger and distrust of those brainwashed by authoritarianism.

2: "Never again" or all the time?

It suits the Powers that Be to loudly say never again, because it sounds so great. Unfoirtunately, it gives them a great distraction away from actually stopping practices that lead to genocide. And then when you point out they're doing it--Palestine, Darfur, East-Timor, Tiber--they say, "No we're not! Didn't you hear? Never again!"

When the rise of the Third Riech was taught in my high school, my otherwise good teachers never talked about corporate investment, consolidating industry/ manufactering, international collusion/support for fascism among elites--including in the States--, the breaking of German unions, such as they were, the Communists and the Reichstag fire(and how it was all fake). All they said of note was Hitler was a very charismatic man and he hated Jews. And so generations learn that the Third Riech rose magically because one man(that great leader meme again) was able to rise to power as if by "magic"on his charisma--whereupon he started to kill people he didn't like.

You want to talk about disinfo? It is in the interests of the power elite to confuse us about how they get and keep their power--by killing and theft. Otherwise they are exposed as a dozen little Hitlers. It is in their interest to make it look like the Third Reich was this great aberation in history, instead of an example of what happens when what they do every day goes too far or comes too close to home. These bastards wouldn't stay in power one second longer if most people understood how deeply corrupted their base for power is.

No, no. You failed to recognize the Holocaust Denier in this very thread.

Andy said: "Who benefits from the official Holocaust story? Who benefits from the official 9/11 story?"

Now ask yourself, what is this official Holocaust story he's talking about? What part of it does he have an issue with? Also note how easily he's equated questioning the official story of 9/11 with denying the Holocaust.

This guy set an obvious trap. You shouldn't fall for it.
The fact that US corporations were involved with the Nazis is quite a seperate issue from what Andy is talking about. At least that's how it appears to me. Maybe he'll comment and explain that he isn't doubting that the Nazis had extermination camps, that they killed 5-6 million jews, that they gassed people in the camps, and that there was a Final Solution that was a State sponsored extermination program, but I sincerely doubt that such a comment will be forthcoming.

Yes, yes, you have failed to give me the links I asked for--in another comments thread re:Real Truther.

Maybe you need to reread that post of mine, re: Andy. I said he made a good point about how dialog can get shut down if things become "sacred cows"(That is a paraphrase--if I leave to check, then refresh I'll lose my text). I was going to add something about parallels to the victim culture in some women's groups and how they also shut down any discussion that might lead to real solutions--but I axed it from my post because it didn't seem neccesary. Apparently I was wrong.

Note: I was not responding one way or the other to his statement "Who benefits from the official Holocaust story? Who benefits from the official 9/11 story?" So, why do you think I was?

A bit of advice chum: don't make patronising assumtions about where people are coming from if you want the conversation to stay civil.

"There was once a time, in our parents' generation, when one could talk about what happened in Europe during the war rationally, based on the known facts. At some point, the Holocaust story was elevated to quasi-religous status, beyond question or analysis."

This was what I had responded to above, before my mini-novel. And it IS true you have to be ridiculously careful how you discuss this or you WILL be labeled an anti-semite. Discussion does not neccesarrily mean disputing broadly known facts. Discussion means being able to ask reasonable questions without being attacked--

Bloody hell, why am I even trying? It doesn't matter how many qualifications I give. You're going to think I said someting else anyway. Just don't be a patronizing prat about it!

And just to drive this point into the ground courtesy of the Jon Gold Self-threading PostTM, here is my actual response to Andy:

"I can't believe I'm actually going to defend Andy--but just a little. Yes, it is bollocks not to take the tragedies seriously, but he has a good point about venerating an issue so much it becomes immune to rational analysis or review. "

Observe complete lack of comment one way or other on "who benefits" about what--but we can do that if you like, sunshine.

A bit of advice back at you: Don't focus on personalities and the social aspect of this board so much and then ask yourself if I've actually attacked you. Then look into Holocaust deniers and how they operate and take a look around 911 blogger.

I don't know you or Col Jenny, so I have no reason to hold you in contempt. I do, however, hold your defense of RT and other Holocaust deniers in contempt and I have no respect for the position that we should abide them and what they say because we support skepticism and free inquiry. RT and other deniers on this site are shoveling out some very old disinfo, and we simply have to confront it. I'm very frustrated by the general level of acceptance of Holocaust denial here.

Both you and Col Jenny have offered me advice on how I should change my behavior. Here is some advice for both of you from me:

Try not to focus on my failings as a diplomat and instead focus on the substance of what I'm saying.

Patronizing
Condesension
Paraphrase--"sacred cow" was part of a paraphrase. Trying to quote it as a direct statement makes you look a--[MILD BRITISH INSULT FOR BEING FOOLISH]

You do not seem to understand the definitions of these words. (I freely admit my spelling is out to lunch--but all things considered that is a lesser offense)

"Don't focus on personalities and the social aspect of this board so much and then ask yourself if I've actually attacked you."

What are you on about? Is this code for I should let you get away with shite? If so, dream on, sunbeam. And I hadn't thought you were "attacking" me--I just think you're being strange and obtuse. I don't know why it occurs to you to say that.

See, I'm not a mind reader--neither are you, as you have proved repeatedly. And that is why it is our responsibility to be as clear as possible on this site. But thank you for the link--I'll click it after I post this.

You know, it's almost as if you want a drama. I only do drama if it's comedy...

I used the words "sacred cow" for brevity's sake just as you did. I was not mocking you. I was not, of course, referring to any actual cows.

What I meant when I said the bit about not focusing on personalities and the social aspect of this board is summed up better by my advice to casseia above and I'll repeat again now in order to clarify:

"Try not to focus on my diplomatic failings and instead focus on the substance of what I'm saying." I'll even add the word please to that:

"PLEASE try not to focus on my diplomatic failings and instead focus on the substance of what I'm saying."

It occurred to me to suggest that you thought I was attacking you because you appeared to be getting defensive. That was how I read your words.

I want drama if that gets people to focus on the Holocaust denier problem we have, and I don't want it if it won't get people to focus on that problem. I would suggest looking at Real Truthers position on the Holocaust and then taking a look at the Nizkor page. Also you might find this to be helpful:

the issue taking on mythical proportions. so that the original tragedy is debased by the fluff added later. gilding the lily is not the best analogy but I hope you see the point. the people who thought that they would make Nazis look worse by claiming they made books, lampshades, and soap out of Jews and injected clorophyll in their eyes (none of these actually happened, though it's what I learned as a child) instead created a credibility problem that will not go away until more questions are answered. If asking these questions gets people put in jail, something is very wrong. And we as 9/11 truth activists don't have to agree with people who question aspects of the holocaust (though in many cases there is no reason not to) to learn from their experience with challenging powerful public myths.

Perhaps the only thing worse than espousing the line you espouse is making such espousal illegal. I stand firmly on the side of free speech.

However, the issue of lampshades is quite different from the issue of gas chambers. You deny the gas chambers, you deny that millions were intentionally exterminated, you deny the holocaust. And your insistence that we shold conflate questions about 9/11 with your kind of holocaust denial is outright treachery.

Well misterguy, I'm glad you believe in free speech. In theory anyway--you seem quite keen on using every non-legal method of discouraging discussion in this case. Let's start here, for example. The gas chambers. You assure me and everyone else that the Nazis used gas chambers to kill large numbers of people (presumably Jewish and otherwise). I have watched a documentary made by David Cole, who is Jewish, that raised valid questions about the "gas chamber" at Auschwitz. Now before you get all upset for my putting that in quotation marks, you have to at least acknowledge a few things that you would know if you watched David's film of his tour of Auschwitz. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9176742040462080597&q=david+cole...

The gas chamber at Auschwitz appears to be a large room with holes at the top which are said to be for throwing in the zyklon-b pellets (not a fake shower, by the way, that also seems to be legend) The first tour guide David speaks to tells him that this is the gas chamber in its original state. David notices some mrkings on the floor where there seem to have been walls at one point. She insists this is in the original state, including the holes in the ceiling.

David is skeptical, so the tour guide brings her supervisor, who explains to David that in fact the gas chamber was restored to its original state, including the removal of the extra walls which were put in when the gas chamber was made into offices for the Nazis (!), and the recreation of the holes in the ceiling which had been covered for the same reason.

David confirms this with the director, Franz Piper, in an interview. The official story of the gas chamber at Auschwitz is that it was a gas chamber, then turned into an office building, then turned back into a gas chamber for purposes of displaying at Auschwitz. It seems fishy, and not just to David.

Since you find this all so outrageous, misterguy, I would ask you to link to the best proof that gas chambers actually existed and were used in the way described by your version of the holocaust. You don't have to be a bigot to have doubts about this, especially when other stories, including 4 million killed at Auschwitz and lampshades and soap being made out of human beings have been accepted as made up, invented, lied about, etc.

When you attack a naturally curious person like me, who has seen what Jewish people themselves have questions about and what we used to be taught that now we learn never happened, as a person motivated by bigotry--despite my every effort to explain how none of this is any way reflects on Jews generally but on those who would use and manipulate them and their legitimate suffering which I don't deny--you seem to many people to be "protesting too much". Maybe you don't know what it means to "protest too much". It is an allusion to Shakespeare that you should look up if you don't.

I want everyone to think about what it means that if I were to say these things in Germany I could be arrested. Especially those who would ask questions that call into question any aspect of the officially sanctioned version of 9/11. Think it can't happen here?

First they came for the Holocaust Deniers™ and I said nothing, because I was not a Holocaust Denier™. Then they came for the 9/11 Truthers, but I said nothing, for I was not a Truther. Then they came for me...

Whether or not the holocaust happened exactly as the holocaust industry would have us think is not the issue--it is the fact that either way, there could develop a taboo around discussion of such an event. Of COURSE they want to make it illegal to spread "outrageous conspiracy theories" about 9/11. Problem is, they need us to be a minority for that to happen, and we're succeeding beyond their worst nightmares at becoming a majority instead.

Thanks to all of you for this interesting discussion about WW2 and the nature of propaganda and its interest groups- but we should stick to 9/11 rather than to get caught up it the Holocaust quicksand that distracts us from topic. We shouldn't promote those who interject this subject into the movement as it acts as a poison pill.

and it appears that certain people seem intent in injecting the holocaust into every discussion - despite the fact that it remains a highly divisive issue that has very bad implications for this movement.

9/11 and the holocaust are two different subjects - despite whatever real or imagines similaraties some people insist exist.

I am also very disheartened that members of this community down-vote people who attempt to curb the holocaust rhetoric.

why not simply start a website to discuss the holocaust - and allow 9111Blogger to deal with 9/11?

"and it appears that certain people seem intent in injecting the holocaust into every discussion - despite the fact that it remains a highly divisive issue that has very bad implications for this movement."

i agree %100 John. and this misterguy seems to be insistent on doing just that, injecting holocaust denial into every discussion. misterguy is not a holocaust denier but he cant stop saying that Real Truther is. over and over and over. check how many times the guy has gone on about the holocaust now. from thread to thread. unprompted. in my experience, thats something Real Truther only talks about when someone else does first for the most part. this misterguy is hell bent on keeping this discussion on holocaust denial though. enough already.

I'm hellbent on exposing Real Truther and other Holocaust deniers. There are a couple of reasons why I'm interested in doing that. Firstly I believe that RT and others are purposively damaging the movement. They're acting out the part of the "9/11 denier", and they use the same techniques in their approach to 9/11 as they use in their approach to the holocaust. That is they falsify, evade, and misguide. Holocaust denial is poison.

Secondly I think it's important for those who are involved in the movement to make a commitment to opposing Holocaust denial specifically and the falsification of history generally.

Now I'm aware that by confronting Real Truther about this I run the risk of promoting him, and of making Holocaust denial more visible on this site. I've decided that silence on the issue wold be a worse mistake.

Finally I've tried to only confront Real Truther on the subject when he mentions it.

"Finally I've tried to only confront Real Truther on the subject when he mentions it. "
funny, because Real Truther has been here for months now and hardly ever talks about the holocaust and you have been here a couple of days and keep following RT around screaming about the holocaust endlessly. there has been more holocaust talk here in the past 2 days than possibly ever before because of YOU, not Real Truther. its actually usually not an issue here for the most part. now that you are here it seems to be quite an issue though. can you just drop it? please?

I've been here for months and not days. I've been logging in and talking here since June. I used to use my real name but left anonymous comments, now I use a pseudonym and I'm registered.

If you look at the various conversations in this thread you'll see that I mostly brought up the subject after someone else had brought it up.

RT pushes the least credible evidence all the time and he focuses on "Zionists" as the culprits behind the attacks. When you combine this with the fact that he's a holocaust denier my conclusion is that he is a dishonest "truther" and, willingly or not, he discredits legitimate questions about 9/11.

As to why this subject is coming up so much I would simply point out that I'm not the one who booked Chris Bollyn on CNN nor did I schedule a 9/11 conference with a Holocaust denier listed as the primary speaker.

I think if you took a close look at the exchanges between RT and me in this thread you'd find that most of the time, maybe 90% of the time, he brings up the subject first.

Still, I'll be happy to consider dropping the subject, and allow RT to continue associating skepticism about the government's account of the 9/11 attacks with Holocaust denial if you could provide me with a reason to think that is the best way to handle the Holocaust deniers who have attached themselves to the 9/11 Truth Movement.

you nailed it. now, maybe I shouldn't take the bait, but the alternative is to let peole like misterguy make false accusations about me without responding, which may lead people who are new here to think that i'm fine with his mischaracterization of me, which would also lead those epople to think that Blogger is OK with "holocaust deniers" participating in the discussion. It's a tough position to be put in, so I'm glad some people understand what is going on and point it out. thanks again.

But you're continual conflation of 9/11 with Holocaust denial is not just a disinfo tactic, it's a demolition tactic. It doesn't matter if you're actions are intentional or not, the fact remains that you are doing harm.

with his concentration on the Patsies.
Why focus so much attention on the patsies?
For me they are the least interesting aspect of 9/11.
We have no idea if they were involved at all, or were just used to take the blame.
There is certainly no reason to think they were on the planes.

And Hicks reliance on Hopsiker is another red flag.
Amanda Keller (or whatever her real name is) the supposed girlfriend of Atta... she's clearly a plant. Her function was to establish the legend of Atta as a "bad dude" and now she's conveniently disappeared.

Then there is the fact that Alternet would even print it... after putting out nothing but hit-pieces they carry this Hicks article. And he doesn't cover any of the basics...

Alternet is part of the controlled media and that hasn't changed.
I just don't like it.
Peace.
Mattmatt@9eleven.info

Why do you act like we're just looking to accuse someone of high treason? Does it ever occur to you that what we want is to know who exactly did what? Whether or not it was high treason or an act of war? That maybe it makes a small difference to some if indeed Arab muslims did NOT hijack any planes that day?

And I'm not out to scratch Hicks, I'm keen to point out how wrong he is, and how oddly convenient it seems that he is chosen by Alternet to present "the other side"'s case.

And as for his wife having a CD she is selling, just goes to show you how quick some people are to try to make a career out of other people's tragedy.

gnn did the same thing with a sander hicks article - they ran a bunch of shitty hit pieces on the movement for the 5th anniversary and then to be fair and balanced they ran the hicks article that said 9/11 doesn't add up but if we want the truth we should shut up about the towers. Anyway, not trying to diss him - just saying -

of the religious folks who try to tell you that their religion is the only way to heaven.

At this point, all options should be on the table. All I know is something really weird happened that day. Something that has never happened before. Three major steel buildings don't just disintegrate the way these buildings did. (Not without a lot of help and an understanding of how these structures were built.) Four passengers jets and their contents do not just disappear. While at the same time, all of the Top Administration Official go AWOL.

Part 1 of this Link TV special hosted by Robert Scheer features 9/11 Press for Truth, a powerful documentary about a small group of grieving families who waged a tenacious battle against those who sought to bury the truth about 9/11. Six of them for the first time the powerful story of how they took on the greatest powers in Washington — and won! — compelling an investigation, only to subsequently watch the 9/11 Commission fail in answering most of their questions.

We need no convincing- SQUIBS( expolosions in the collapse that superceeded the compression wave giving evidence of a deliberate implosion) THERMATE COMPOUNDS (lowering the melting point of metal) , WTC building centre 7 destruction- 911 NEO NAZI FASCIST UPRISING HAS BECOME OUR NIGHTMARE- IT IS NOT A POINT OF ACADEMICS FOR US- We have just been targeted attacked put through a SECRET TRIAL with cia nsa fbi on jury pool .(*http://courtcorruption90.blogspot.com/ )- I AM FORTUNATE TO BE ALIVE THEY TRIED TO KILL ME- we are currently living in terror and hold a secret of ARAR CASE MAGNITUDE - PLEASE HELP US EXPOSE THIS TYRANNY... All of us will soon be targets as we have been - Martin Niemöller's rendition First They Came spells the future of a world that grows complacent and passive or desensitized to the forthcoming subjugation that otherwise awaits all of us...

please contact us and HELP SPREAD 911 TRUTH BY SPREADING THE MEDIA CENSORED TRAGEDY OF OUR PLIGHT

Arabic and Urdu names don't have an exact translation to English. The characters are nothing like English letters, which should be common knowledge by now. Thus, many different spellings can describe the same name. It's phoenetic.

This is highly problematic, and confuses the hell out of Americans. That is one reason they are able to so thoroughly manipulate the public.

2. "lack of evidence"

The Indian intelligence service and the Times of India put their reputations on the line to bring us this evidence. Also, the Indian intelligence exposed their methods and means (bugging the ISI chief's cell phone), and thereby lost future use of that information channel, just to show the world what it had found. Thus there was a cost associated with making this claim. That gives credibility. Other evidence shows that the ISI chief was in Washington DC from Sept. 4 to 13 making deals with high level Bushies like Tenet and Armitage.

Since ISI CREATED "Al Qaeda" in the first place, there is a certain confidence we can start with. The evidence is not limited to this video clip, as you suggest, and has more corroboration. Your dismissal is out of ignorance, not superior knowledge of the facts.

3. The theme is "Muslims did it"

That is a simplistic and inaccurate reading of the facts. There were "Al Qaeda" / ISI operatives in the US. They must be accounted for one way or another.

The blanket denials by US officials (Rice) and their attempt to cover up even questions about the existence of the ISI chief (deleting his name from White House transcripts) reveal guilt.

This evidence further damages the US government's claims about 9-11 in several ways. They had used Omar Sheikh as their own "smoking gun" to prove Al Qaeda infolvement in 9-11. When it came out that this was actually under the control of ISI, the story changed, morphed, and no further explanations of the money trail were forthcoming.

The government and the 9-11 commission have gone to great lengths to pretend that the money trail doesn't matter, whicih is incredible, beyond belief, absurd ad infinitum. THAT is why we know we are onto something. They are going to ridiculous lengths to cover it up, to this day.

4. None of this relies on Randy Glass, who was probably telling the truth. He was in contact with Bob Graham (head of Senate Intelligence Committee) warning him about attacks on the WTC in July of 2001. Graham confirmed this.

If you don't think this needs intense investigation -- then you are just not thinking.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NEW REVELATIONS ON 9-11

Was it an "intelligence failure" to give red carpet treatment to the "money man" behind the 9-11 terrorists, or was it simply "routine"?

On the morning of September 11, Pakistan's Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money-man" behind the 9-11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees.

jews dont need the holocaust to be loved---
------------------------------------
just think of the historical example of jews and non jews working together to end false flag terror for all time with the 911 truth movement

people will remember the jews with fondness

they wont need the holocaust /holocaust denier axiom as ''insurance for their survival'

america will have a fondness for it's jewish citizens who helped take out the cfr influence----and had faith that other americans helped them

even holocaust deniers----
------------------------------------------------------------
it would be interesting to take a poll of holocaust deniers at this site---and ask them if they hate jews---
or if its because of their interpretation of historical facts

people in america are free to believe or not believe in the holocaust

i bet you would find out that it was like two shills that were trying to push buttons----and that everyone else would fight to save the life of a jew

But you'll find that the troll here (misterguy) who accuses everyone of not defending the holocaust myth 100% is not interested in protecting Jews--he is interested in protecting the myth, and by protecting the myth, protecting Israel. But neither the holocaust myth nor the state of Israel are or ever have been about protecting Jews. They have been about using Jews for the political ends of a group of elites.

We can say it over and over but it will not change misterguy's thoughtless approach--Jews suffered greatly at the hands of the German state during WW2. Their suffering was exploited (probably even encouraged) by Zionists--the people who would replace British-led european colonial dominance of Palestine with Zionist-led european colonial dominance of Palestine. The Zionists were elites who wanted a country, so they used the Nazis crimes to their advantage by having european Jews sent to fight in their terrorist war for other poeples' land in Palestine. German crimes were exaggerated as the Zionist role was minimized, so that the world would support the Zionist state. Because now there is a state whose actions can be manipulated to make people think they reflect on all Jews, and because this state compels all Jews to support it or be ostracized by other Jews, the state of Israel cannot be said to be good for Jews. Those of us who point out these historical facts do so very much with the interests of the world's Jews at heart. That is the big secret that Zionists cannot allow Jews to get wind of. Everyone does not hate them. Zionists make things worse. Integration works, apartheid never does.

So associating 9/11 truth with people who don't believe that we need government at all is a good thing? don't get me wrong, I have my own problems with states as they exist, and I know anarchism is often misrepresented as advocating anarchy, which it really doesn't. What I don't understand is your anti-revisionist attitude, given that 9/11 truth is about revisionism, pure and simple. Your claims that these associations hurt 9/11 truh are meaningless--you can't show that that is the case at all. If anything, it harms the mythical elements surrounding the holocaust, because when people get their heads around the fact that people WOULD lie about something as tragic as 9/11, it stands to reason they will think twice about other historical events. If I were saying that aliens were responsible for 9/11 or the holocaust that would be different. You can claim what you want about your motivation and mine, but it doesn't make it true.

If a woman was raped, if she demonstrated that she was raped with a ream of evidence, if it was proven in a court of law, and you said "Listen, I'm sympathetic but I don't believe you were raped" I believe the woman would be correct in discounting your sympathy.

You can't be sympathetic with a people about the Holocaust if you're denying it happened.

was the holocaust an attack by hitler on mescaline----actually using death as an excuse so that israel would have to be made after world war 2

i heard that the bankers got the usa into ww 1 by making britain promise to give them palestine so they could create 'israel'

it didnt work-----so they set up hitler to create a crisis so that afterward a state of israel would 'have to be made'
--------------------------------------------------------

this could go alot of ways

and since everyone in america is free----

i dont see why a person couldnt think that there was strangeness on the issue on the holocaust-----but still totally love the jews---and be willing to make sure that anything like that never happens again

I'm not against controlled demoltion theories. It's just not my focus. I AM thinking in terms of political movement building, and what are the arguements that can reach people the fastest. And I'm sticking to what I am most certain about: historical patterns and first-hand eye witness whistleblowers.

But I don't want you to think I'm against Controlled Demo theories. Hell, I was at 911 conferences years ago, in SF, CA, I saw Jim Hoffman's early presentations. I was convinced then-controlled demolition is a fine topic, I support it. I like the work of Steven Jones, whom I met in Chicago, at the 911 conference there. I think the controlled demolition crowd are solid scientists and PhD physicians, and they are up against a lot and fighting the good fight.

BUT I don't base my 911 analysis on controlled demo, because I'm not taking the physics-based analysis of Hoffman or Jones. I wasn't a math major. I'm taking more of a historical/political approach. But a lot of people in this scrappy movement then assume that I'm ANTI-controlled demolition theories, which is just not true. Controlled demolition is a fine area of inquiry-it should come up in the hearings you all should demand be held by Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes (see my post on this, at Alternet, and later at 911Blogger...or below....)

Here's our project for the weekend, for folks who actually want to DO something, about 911:

Hi Gang, Sander Hicks here again, thanks for all your posts about my article. This is a lively forum and I really appreciate the fact that I've got so many comments.

If you're overwhelmed at the task in front of us, don't despair. We've got a huge momentum going. This movement is cross-spectrum politics, and it appeals to basic American instincts. It's the people versus the powerful, and we the people have the truth on our side.

On January 9th, I sent a professional letter and supporting documents into the DA of Brooklyn, District Attorney Charles Hynes. I had met him this past fall at an interfaith event promoting tolerance and education, as a way to combat hate crimes. I was a big fan of his already, since he prosecuted the mafia-connected/CIA-connected FBI goon Lin DeVecchio. We had a rapport.

I included my book, and copies of my exclusive report on Atta-pal Wolfgang Bohringer, recently published in Vox Pop's newspaper, New York Megaphone.

It's only at the local governmental level that the people have any hope to redress grievances with an out of control Federal war state. If you agree with this call, then I invite you to help me out.

A phone call can be a kind of vote. I want you to call Orlando Rivera, he's my contact at the DA's Public Information Office. Urge him to get DA Hynes, or one of the Assistant DAs CCed on the proposal, to issue a formal response.

Let's all urge the DA to assemble an independent advisory panel of experts on the topic. Urge hearings. Urge an internal inquiry. Put it in your own words and mention what you want to mention, but do it. Call Orlando Rivera at 1.718.250.2000. He's a nice young guy. He took me seriously. This is a matter of national security. Never forget that. This is real national security, folks, the terrorists are in the White House.

But there IS hope. We saw, in the early 90's that when the Feds could not and would not investigate CIA bank BCCI, the local DA in Manhattan, undertook a coureagous and historical prosecution. It's time for the Brooklyn DA to follow suit.

Orlando usually picks up the phone, here:
Public Information Kings County District Attorney's Office 1.718.250.2000

Thanks, let me know if you volunteer to do this, to make a call for the cause. Right now it's 10:08 on Friday night. If you're committed to calling on Monday, 9 AM, EST, then say so, post it here, and leave your email, too, and I'll send you a reminder to do it, Monday AM.

And if they won't assemble hearings, then I say WE organize hearings, right outside the Brooklyn Supreme Court building where the DA has his office.

OK? Who's with me?

Keep up the love, keep up the struggle. The 9/11 Truth Movement is turning heads and changing minds!

"If the American people really want the truth about 9/11, we’ve got to stop diddling around with theories about maybe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, or maybe controlled demolition took down the towers. Maybe so, but let’s go there only after we’ve met the real people in flesh and blood, who have suffered to get the truth out"

Sander Hicks - Five Years Later: The Official Story Falls Apart

So i guess only on the 5th anniversary you are not down with 'why did they come down'?

"Here's our project for the weekend, for folks who actually want to DO something"

This is straight out of the play book of Stephen Marshall and Anthony Lappe' from GNN.TV. I guess I need to just lap it up and shut up to be considered part of the crowd that is "actually DOING something".

I think the true meaning of "the big wedding" as the code name for 9/11 is that America and Israel would be married in a partnership against the world's Arabs and Muslims as a way to enact the elites' program of global domination.

As for doing something, no one needs anyone's permission or encouragement. If you want to do something about 9/11, get out in the street and talk to people. Simple as that. Make sure they know the important facts and then let them find their own way.